Ian J.

From some internet searching this morning, it appears that U.S. copyright law is quite clear that facts can't have copyright, but I'm not so sure yet about U.K. law. There is an article that I can't view the whole of as it requires a log in (https://www.jstor.org/stable/24866738) that discusses the issue. I obviously can't tell if it has a resolution, but I haven't been able to find anything regarding the issue as it pertains to U.K. law.

I have recently noted I might need a few of these. Any news on the OO versions?

OK, so Freightliner 57 and 66 'required'. Looking at current stock levels it seems FGA/FFA combos might be problem to get hold of, but with Realtrack doing the FSA/FTA combo that appeared to be more common at the time, I will keep an eye on the development of those and get some once they're released. That should be enough for me to represent the trains for S&P.

Agreed, but aren't there examples where occasionally information is deliberately in error in a given source so that it can be identified as having come from a particular source? Also, notes are sometimes where information is given, and knowing how to decipher the information from the note isn't always obvious. Lots of 'traps' to consider...

Really? A lot of research work goes into authoring books the likes of Gould's and King's, and I'm sure they (or their estates/publishers/etc.,) wouldn't want to feel that their effort could be negated by the same information appearing in online form for free. If indeed it isn't subject to copyright, I think I would need some kind of confirmation that if I made the Access file available I couldn't be sued.

57s in Freightliner and 66s in EWS...?

Due to sources of information coming from the works of Gould and King, etc, and those being in copyright, I don't think it would be wise for me to make the Access file publicly available. It would be more like I'd have the file on my PC, and could use it to look up information based on requests. How much detail could be included in a request output I'm not sure at this point. There's a long way to go before I need to worry about that though.

I like to try to have a context of authenticity to my 'rule 1' scenario in S&P, so having some actual historical information to guide me helps. I thin Freightliner might be likely, as they operate in Southampton now and I think did so in 2005, and Penmouth is essentially a kind of 'overflow' port for Southampton when it comes to containers.

Well, I've ordered the standard and revised blue releases. They seem like they might be selling quite quickly going by stock levels on some sites, so I didn't want to hang around and miss out.

Are we going to have a third release at some point, with specially-made 'dented' boxes to commemorate this event...? 😉

RMweb had issues earlier in the year where images were lost by the internet hosting company of that time. The provider has since been changed. Unfortunately it has not been possible to recover the images in their entirety and many are now missing. It will be up to the original creators of the threads, posts, blogs, etc, to re-upload their images. In some cases this will not happen as the creators are no longer on RMweb, either through leaving the site or passing away, or the creators no longer have the images. Your first position on trying to see a lost image will be to message the creator of the relevant post and see if they are still around, and if so would they be willing to re-upload the image, if they still have it.

The problem is I don't know what container wagons were around in 2005, let alone which would be the best candidates...

Hi all, What would be suitable wagons for carrying containers circa 2005, out of a fictional South Coast port? I've done a little internet searching but I'm not coming up with anything informative. TIA, Ian

OK, with a little help from a friend who had a suitable engineering tool for holding things, I have been able to reliable file down the foot of a check rail, keep the edge 'pointed' and fit it to the turnout. That reduced the check rail gap from 1.2mm to very near 1.0. That was then glued in place with a two part epoxy (B&Q's 'finest') and that seems to have held well. I'm not going to break the join deliberately and I have used enough pressure to feel confident that it's holding. Testing with a Hornby wagon with wheels at pretty much the maximum gap (14.75mm back to back) has the wagon running through the check rail cleanly and not hitting the V point. The beauty of this way of narrowing the gap is it's probably easier to do once the turnouts are laid. This means I can get on with fiddleyard track laying for S&P and can worry about narrowing the gaps at a later date once everything's running well in 'coarse' mode.

To my eye that lower band looks off-white. But that would still be wrong of course, as it's definitely supposed to be darker than that by a few 'shades'.

I still prefer the front-of-cab footsteps on the old Lima model to the new Bachmann one. There must be something wrong with me, I suppose, but just having separately fitted footsteps in order to have that as a selling point, when molding them on actually looks better, seems daft.

Not very good pics, I haven't been able to get decent light onto them, but the BR(S) Green ones are here: The green still looks a little too dark to me, but otherwise they are nice 🙂

I don't have it, but it sounds like it could be very useful.

I have the feeling this is going to be quite a big project, as it's looking likely that I'll have to do quite a bit of digging into resources to check and straighten out the data. To some degree, that makes the SEMG file moot, but it's still a good starting point. The next thing on the agenda will be acquiring copies of Gould's Oakwood Press books beyond the one I already have (Maunsell's SR Steam Carriage Stock), so that I at least have the resources to hand.

OK, an example of having data in a better, more structured form, means transcription compromises can be found: Mike King's book 'An Illustrated History of Southern Coaches' has a table on page 14, Table 1, noting the stock from pre-grouping as re-numbered by the SR in 1924. Mike King's book 'Southern Pull-Push Stock' has a table on page 70, Table 3, noting ex LSWR non corridor Pull-Push sets. The SEMG spreadsheet has as its first set number 1, noted as ex LSWR non-corridor Pull-Push, as a BT-C formation with vehicles 2620 and 6488 respectively, matching the Table 3 entry from MK's Pull-Push book. That Table 3 has column headings for the 'BT' and 'C' vehicles of the sets listed. Taken literally, you'd think 6488 was a 'C', but it's not. The cross reference to Table 1 from MK's Southern Coaches book puts 6488 as a 'BC'. Checking the Pull-Push book in more detail on the chapter for LSWR non corridor sets, it turns out that the diagram for 6488 was 419, the drawing of which is of a 'BC'. So, presuming that the drawing for diagram 419 is correct, the way Table 3 has been laid out causes an interpretation error due to the 'C' column not differentiating between 'C' and 'BC', and leads to a mistake in the SEMG spreadsheet where the listing for Set 1 is as BT-C, when in fact it should be BT-BC. Ideally, the column heading 'C' in Table 3 should have been 'C/BC', then for anyone checking, it would be apparent that it was necessary to do a bit of further reading to know exactly what the type of vehicle 6488 was.

That reminds me...

Fewer than one... 🤣

We shouldn't forget that the HO manufacturers also have to make compromises for their 'scale' stuff going round radius 1 and 2 track. Proto87 isn't, as such, a commercial scale as far as I'm aware, and for pretty much the same reasons P4 isn't.

Due to an issue with NFL GamePass not working properly tonight, I've had a bit extra time on the data. It looks like there are quite a few carriage type conflicts between sources in the spreadsheet, so I'm going to have to resort to checking them against what I have in the Mike King book I have. I have another book on Maunsells that may also provide some extra help. Whatever is left I will post back here for a crowd source check 🙂

I wonder if there was only one driver/unloader, for what looks like at least a two person job. Delivery companies these days are trying so much to save on personnel costs it wouldn't surprise me if there was only one.